Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/00002/AREA Tree Preservation Order

Proposal

To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 24/00002/AREA in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough.

 

Case Officer

Justin Hobbs

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Recommendation

That Planning and Licensing Committee resolves to:

Confirm TPO 24/00002/AREA

Minutes:

Proposal

To consider comments of objection and support to the making of Tree Preservation Order 24/00002/AREA in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough.

 

Case Officer: Justin Hobbs

Ward Member: Councillor David Cunningham

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the proposed TPO.

 

  1. There were no additional updates to the report included in the agenda.
  2. Various maps and photos of the site were shared to outline the existing landscape and the area to be protected under the proposed order.
  3. Key issues mentioned were: 

(a)  Tree and Root Damage: Compaction of soil and use of heavy machinery in areas that should have been fenced off, potentially causing long-term damage to tree roots.

(b)  Felled Trees: While some trees were legally removed, their loss highlighted the need for protection.

(c)   Inadequate Fencing: Protective barriers were insufficient or misplaced.

(d)  Soil Dumping: Soil mounds placed around trees risk damaging roots.

 

It was reported that an area TPO was proposed to cover all trees in the area as an interim measure due to urgency. This proposal aimed to ensure protection while ongoing development and enforcement issues, as well as the lack of a clear landscaping plan, were addressed.

 

Public Speakers raised the following objections to the area TPO:

 

  1. Conflict with Planning Consent: The TPO was claimed to obstruct implementation of planning consent, which included the removal of some trees.

The Case Officer stated that the TPO did not prevent necessary tree removal for planning implementation, and most required removals had already occurred

  1. Failure to Meet Expediency Criteria: It was argued that regulations allowed necessary tree works under planning consent.

The Case Officer responded that the TPO ensured the protection of other trees and did not prevent applications for future tree works.

  1. Amenity Value Assessment: The objector stated that there had been inadequate assessment of tree quality.

The Case Officer replied that it used its structured appraisal, and that public support further justified the TPO.

  1. Area-Wide TPO Coverage: There was an objection suggesting that the Council should have listed specific trees instead of implementing an area-wide TPO.

The Case Officer explained that an area-wide TPO was necessary given ongoing issues and that a reassessment would be conducted post-development for specific protection.

 

Public Supporters

Mr Rose, a landscape architect with 50+ years of experience, and resident of Longborough spoke in support of the TPO:

The supporter urged approval of the TPO and urged that the TPO be made permanent to safeguard current and future trees on the site, citing:

  • The developer's poor compliance with expert recommendations, which included the unnecessary felling of many healthy trees, despite plans to retain trees in the 2024 application.
  • A 2021 report from the developers' own advisors which emphasised the mature vegetation's significant ecological and visual value.
  • Further concerns were expressed about a 2025 application proposing a retaining wall near the conservation area boundary.

 

Ward Member Comments

The Ward Member emphasized the importance of protecting the natural environment, particularly wooded areas, which provide significant amenities and mental health benefits. They cited local and national policies, including EN5, EN6, and MPPF Chapter 15, Section 189, highlighting the need to preserve national landscapes. They noted the Case Officer's report addressed concerns about tree removal and supported implementing an area TPO for expediency due to confusion over why trees were felled against original plans. The area TPO would ensure consultation and agreement on tree preservation during development, with flexibility for future modifications to individual trees or areas. The Ward Member confirmed that the Parish Council and residents had expressed unanimous support for confirming the TPO to protect the natural environment. The Ward Member stressed the Council's responsibility to preserve the natural environment while balancing development need.

 

Members Questions

  1. Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Confirmation: A Member enquired whether the TPO document presented was provisional. The Case Officer clarified that it was provisional and would be officially signed if the TPO was confirmed. They also confirmed that the TPO could be modified if necessary.
  2. 2025 Planning Application and Tree Impact: A Member queried a new planning application made by the developer in 2025 and the relevance of trees in current and past developments. The Case Officer explained that a current live application related to landscaping compliance was under review, and confirmed that some trees had already been removed, contrary to original conditions.
  3. Tree Protection Measures: Members raised concerns about compliance with tree protection conditions and whether non-compliance had occurred. The Case Officer acknowledged issues and enforcement steps being taken to ensure future adherence.
  4. Retaining Wall Dispute: A retaining wall's impact on trees was questioned. The Case Officer confirmed that differences in plans and current construction were noted.
  5. Administrative Concerns: Members queried whether the Council's approach to the TPO had been "administratively lazy." The Case Officer rejected this characterisation and justified the decision.
  6. Future Tree Management: It was clarified that future tree management would require separate applications for TPO-protected trees and that modifications to the TPO could be initiated by the Council post-development.
  7. Site Visit for TPO Confirmation: A Member proposed a site visit to decide if the TPO should be modified. The Case Officer noted that while members were free to do so, officers recommended confirming the TPO as presented to ensure immediate protection for the remaining trees.

 

 

Member Comments

Members commented on the action of initiating a TPO and argued that confirming the order was expedient, timely, and proportionate, emphasizing the importance of tree protection and the evidence of unintended damage.

 

Councillor Coleman praised Councillor Cunningham's remarks, highlighted the Case Officer’s thorough report, and clarified that the Committee was not constraining development but responding to the developer's actions.

 

Councillor Fowles expressed confusion over the evidence presented, noting discrepancies in fencing placement and the objector's professional input. They felt the area TPO was impacting site finalisation and landscaping and decided to abstain due to insufficient information.

 

Councillor Coleman proposed support of the officer's recommendation for an area TPO and this was seconded by Councillor Harris.

 

Recommendation

The recommendation to make an area TPO in respect of trees at Upper Town House, Longborough was APPROVED.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages